Ansible Automation PlatformApplication · Redhat
CVE-2022-1632
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn Improper Certificate Validation attack was found in Openshift. A re-encrypt Route with destinationCACertificate explicitly set to the default serviceCA skips internal Service TLS certificate validation. This flaw allows an attacker to exploit an invalid certificate, resulting in a loss of confidentiality.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceIn OpenShift, a re-encrypt Route with destinationCACertificate explicitly set to the default serviceCA incorrectly skips internal Service TLS certificate validation. This improper certificate validation allows invalid certificates to be accepted, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks and compromising confidentiality.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Ansible Automation PlatformApplication
= 2.0
Openshift Container PlatformApplication
= 4.0
FedoraOperating system
= 34= 35CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm OpenShift Container Platform versionRun 'oc get clusterversion' to check if the cluster is running OCP 4.xAffected if The cluster version shows 4.x (any minor version in the 4.0 family)
-
List re-encrypt type RoutesRun 'oc get routes --all-namespaces -o jsonpath={.items[?(@.spec.tls.termination=="reencrypt")].metadata.name} --all-namespaces' to find re-encrypt RoutesAffected if Any re-encrypt Routes exist in the cluster
-
Inspect destinationCACertificate on re-encrypt RoutesRun 'oc get routes -o json' and examine the spec.tls.destinationCACertificate field for each re-encrypt RouteAffected if Any re-encrypt Route has a destinationCACertificate value explicitly set
-
Compare destinationCACertificate against default serviceCAObtain the default serviceCA bundle with 'oc get configmap -n openshift-config-managed router-ca -o jsonpath={.data.service-ca\.bundle}' and compare it to the destinationCACertificate values found on re-encrypt RoutesAffected if A re-encrypt Route's destinationCACertificate matches the default serviceCA bundle exactly
A user is affected if they have any re-encrypt Route in OpenShift Container Platform 4.x where the destinationCACertificate is explicitly set to match the default serviceCA bundle.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataEnsure destinationCACertificate is not explicitly set to the default serviceCA for re-encrypt Routes, or apply OpenShift updates that correct the certificate validation logic to properly handle the default serviceCA case.
Fix this in Ansible Automation Platform
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-1632 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-1632 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data